Richards v. Wisconsin

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Wisconsin's decision by a unanimous vote. Justice Stevens, who gave the Court's opinion, began by noting that the ruling did not provide a constitutional justification for a "blanket exception" to the knock and announce requirement in felony drug cases. Rather, exceptions could be made to that requirement on a case-by-case basis in view of certain factors. These included the possibility of physical violence or fears that, if the police took the time to knock and announce, the suspect would use the lead time to destroy evidence or flee--as Richards had apparently attempted to do. Exceptions could be created, Justice Stevens wrote, but they had to be subjected to the scrutiny of courts as needed, and they had to take into account "at least two serious concerns." The first of these was the fact that officers might attempt to include within the special exceptions some drug investigations that did not really involve special risks, and this would place too many such cases outside the watchful eyes of judges. Second, "an exception in one category can, relatively easily, be applied to others." It was not the Court's desire to create a series of exceptions, and the application of exceptions in every situation that posed a threat to officers would simply render the knock and announce requirement meaningless.

Hence, Justice Stevens held, a no knock entry could be justified in situations where the police had reasonable suspicion that announcing their presence would be "dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime." To thus permit exceptions, but to forbid blanket exceptions to the knock and announce requirement struck "the appropriate balance between the legitimate law enforcement concerns at issue in the execution of search warrants and the individual privacy interests affected by no knock entries."

Having addressed the general question, Justice Stevens turned to the specific situation involved in Richards. The evidence in the present case justified the decision on the part of the officers not to announce their presence, Justice Stevens held, and thus they had not violated the Fourth Amendment. As for the objection that the magistrate had specifically refused a no knock warrant, this meant only "that at the time warrant was requested there was insufficient evidence for a no knock entry. However, the officers' decision to enter the room must be evaluated as to the time of entry."